Chullin 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

The essential point

is the root

of the bitter herb.

Rav Yehuda said: One who eats three stalks of asafoetida,

three stalks of asafoetida

on an empty stomach,

before eating

his skin is stripped off,

because asafoetida generates heat, and he is seized by a fever.

Rabbi Abbahu said: I once experienced this myself. I ate one stalk of asafoetida,

one stalk of asafoetida, and the skin of my body became hot,

and had I not sat in water,

if I had not sat in water to cool myself,

my skin would have been stripped off,

the skin of my body would have peeled away from me.

And I fulfilled with regard to myself [

Ecclesiastes 7]

“Wisdom preserves the life of its possessor.”

Rav Yosef said: One who eats

all the following things together:

sixteen eggs, forty walnuts, seven handfuls of caper seeds, and two quarter-log measures of honey during the season of Tammuz, on an empty stomach—

the attachment

of

his heart

to the body

is severed. A certain fawn,

a young deer,

that came to the house of the Exilarch, whose hind legs had been severed.

Rav examined it at the juncture of the tendons and deemed it fit.

He intended to eat some of it rare,

not thoroughly roasted.

Shmuel said to him:

But

does the Master not take into consideration snakebite,

the venom of a snake? It is possible that a snake bit it and venom was left in it, making it forbidden to eat because of the danger to life.

He said to him: What is the remedy?

He said to him: Place it in the oven, for it will examine itself,

and that is to say, it will be tested on its own: If it contains venom, this will become apparent as a result of the heat of the oven.

He placed it

in the oven, and

it fell

from it

in strips.

In pieces, on account of the snake venom that it contained.

Shmuel recited this verse concerning Rav [

Proverbs 12]:

“No harm shall befall the righteous,”

as though to say: I happened to be here and prevented him from eating, and thus Rav was saved from eating the venom.

Rav recited this verse concerning Shmuel [

Daniel 4]: “

No secret is hidden from you,”

as he knew to be concerned about snake venom.

Mishna:

The signs

of the ritual purity of

domestic animals and wild animals are stated in the Torah,

as it is written [Leviticus 11:3]: “This is the animal that you may eat: Any animal that has a completely split hoof and brings up its cud among the animals, that may you eat.”

And the signs

of the ritual purity of

birds were not stated

in the Torah.

But

by examining the impure birds mentioned in the Torah,

the Sages said

and established signs by which to recognize which bird is impure and which bird is pure.

Any bird that is a predator,

which grasps its prey with its claws and lifts from the ground what it eats, is a

impure bird,

as a pure bird is not a predator.

Any

bird

that has an extra digit,

behind the other digits, with that digit being one of the other digits,

and

has

a crop,

a pouch in which food collects before passing to the stomach,

and whose gizzard

and the membrane inside the gizzard

can be peeled

from the flesh by hand, without a knife, is a

pure

bird.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Any bird that separates its feet,

so that when it is placed on a cord it spreads its toes, two in one direction and two in the other, is

impure,

as it is certainly a predatory bird.

And concerning locusts—

these are the signs of their purity:

Any creature that has four legs, four wings, and jumping legs,

two long legs [in addition to the four legs] located near its neck, and when it wishes to leap from the ground it strengthens and supports itself on them,

and whose wings cover

cover

most of it,

most of its body.

Rabbi Yosei says: And its name must be locust.

For even if it possesses these four signs, it is not pure unless it is also known that its name is locust.

And concerning fish—

the signs of their purity are stated in the Torah:

Any creature that has fins and scales.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The fish is not pure unless it has

two scales and one fin.

And these are scales: Those that are attached to it—

the scales attached to it, which do not move on their own when it swims, unlike fins.

And

these are

fins: Those with which it flies,

by means of which it swims in the water.

Gemara:

The Sages taught [

in the Tosefta]:

These are the signs

of the purity of

a domestic animal:

as it is written in the portion of Re’eh [Deuteronomy 14]: “

And every animal with a completely split hoof

and with a hoof completely cloven into two parts, and that brings up its cud among the animals, that may you eat.”

Any animal that brings up its cud—

it is known

to be the case,

that it has no upper teeth, and it is pure

animal.

And we raised a difficulty:

Is this an absolute rule,

that any animal that brings up its cud has no upper teeth and is pure?

But the camel brings up its cud,

as it is written: “The camel, because it brings up its cud,”

and it has no upper teeth, yet it is impure

animal!? And we answer:

A camel—

has fangs!

It has two teeth above, on the two sides of its mouth. [And some explain that although it has no upper teeth, it has gums that protrude like teeth.] Therefore it is impure!

And we challenge this:

But what of a young camel,

when it is small,

which also has no fangs,

as it has no upper fangs until it grows, and nevertheless it is impure?

And furthermore: What of the hyrax and the hare,

which bring up their cud and have upper teeth, and are impure? As it is written: “The hyrax, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a split hoof, it is impure for you. And the hare, because it brings up its cud, but has not split the hoof, it is impure for you.”

And furthermore: Are teeth written in the Torah

with regard to the signs of purity? And what relevance do the animal’s teeth have to its purity? Are teeth not one of the signs of purity of an animal written in the Torah!?

And we answer:

Rather, this is what

the tanna of the Tosefta

is saying: Any animal that has no upper teeth is certainly one that brings up its cud and has a split hoof, and is pure.

The practical difference is that if one sees an animal with no upper teeth, he knows that it is pure and need not wait to see whether it brings up its cud.

We ask: What practical difference is there in this sign, that if it has no upper teeth it is pure? Why should one examine its teeth,

rather than examine its hooves?

For if it has a split hoof, it is a pure animal!? [As we have established, every animal with a split hoof brings up its cud, except for the pig.]

And we answer: The need to examine its teeth is

in a case where its hooves had been cut off.

For then he cannot examine its hooves and must rely on this sign—that it has no upper teeth—to know that it is a pure animal.

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Hisda. For Rav Hisda said: If one was traveling in the desert and found an animal whose hooves had been cut off,

and he does not know whether it is a pure animal—

he examines its mouth. If it has no upper teeth,—

it is certainly pure. But if not [

if it has upper teeth],

it is certainly impure. Provided that he recognizes

what a

camel

is, and knows that this animal is not a camel. For a camel also has no upper teeth, and nevertheless it is impure.

The Gemara wonders:

A camel?!

But

it has fangs.

Since it has upper fangs [teeth] in its mouth, why must one recognize a camel? It has no sign of purity, and there is no concern that he might think a camel is a pure animal!?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what Rav Hisda is saying:

Provided that he recognizes a young camel.

A young camel has no fangs, and therefore one must recognize it, so that he will not permit it for consumption on the basis that it has no upper teeth.

And we challenge this: Is it not the case that

you said,

did you not say that

there is a young camel

that has no teeth and is impure? If so, here too there is reason for concern that

there is also another species,

another animal,

that resembles a young camel

which has no teeth and is impure!? If so, what benefit is there in examining the animal to see that it has no upper teeth? There is still concern that it may be an impure animal!?

And we answer:

That should not enter your mind!

There is no concern that there are other animals without upper teeth that are impure.

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written: “

And the camel, because it brings up its cud

but does not have a split hoof, it is impure for you.” The Holy One,

who is sovereign over His world,

He

knows that there is no creature

animal

, that brings up its cud and is impure, except the camel,

and its counterparts mentioned in the Torah—the hyrax and the hare.

Therefore, the verse singled it out

and said: “Because it brings up its cud

itself.”

Likewise, it explicitly mentioned the hyrax and the hare, to teach you that all other animals that bring up their cud are pure, and you need not be concerned that perhaps, despite bringing up their cud, they are impure.

And Rav Hisda said:

One who

was traveling on the road and found an animal whose mouth was mutilated,

cut off [and he cannot determine whether it has no upper teeth, which is its sign of purity]—

examines its hooves.

If its hooves are split [

as it is written, “with a completely split hoof,” meaning that its hooves are split],

it is certainly

an animal

pure.

And

if not,

if its hooves are not split,

it is certainly

an animal

impure, provided that he recognizes a pig.

For although a pig has a split hoof, it is impure.

And we challenge this:

Did you not say

did you not say that

there is a pig

that has a split hoof and is impure? If so, here too there is reason for concern that perhaps

there is also another species

another animal

that resembles a pig,

has a split hoof, and is impure?

If so, what benefit is there in examining its hooves? Even if he finds that its hooves are split, perhaps it is an impure animal!?

And we answer:

That should not enter your mind!

There is no concern that there are other animals that have a split hoof and are impure.

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written: “

And the pig, because it has a split hoof

and so on, it is impure for you.” The Holy One,

who is sovereign over His world,

He

knows that there is no creature

animal

that has a split hoof and is impure, except the pig

alone.

Therefore, the verse singled it out

“impure

is,”

and mentioned only the pig, to say that the other animals with split hooves are pure. We need not be concerned that perhaps, despite having split hooves, they are impure.

And Rav Hisda said: If one was traveling in the desert and found an animal whose mouth was mutilated,

cut off,

and whose hooves were cut off,

so that he cannot examine either its teeth or its hooves to determine whether it is pure,

he examines its flesh: If it tears lengthwise and crosswise,

if, when the flesh is torn, it tears both lengthwise and widthwise,

it is certainly

an animal

pure. But if

it does not tear lengthwise and crosswise,

it is certainly

an animal

impure.

Provided that he recognizes the wild donkey,

the wild ass, which, although its flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise, is an impure animal.

And we challenge this:

Did you not say

did you not say that

there is a wild donkey

whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise, yet it is impure,

there is also another species,

another animal

that resembles a wild donkey,

whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise and which is impure? If so, what benefit is there in examining its flesh? Even if he finds an animal whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise, there is reason for concern that it may be an impure animal!?

And we answer:

It is an established tradition

that they had received,

that there is no

such animal whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise and which is impure, other than the wild donkey. Therefore, if one finds an animal in the desert whose flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise and knows that it is not a wild donkey, it is certainly a pure animal.

And we explain:

And where does he examine

its flesh, to determine whether it tears lengthwise and widthwise?

Abaye said, and some say Rav Hisda: At the wings of the tail,

beneath the tailbone; there he examines whether the flesh tears lengthwise and widthwise.

We learned in the Mishna:

The signs of a wild animal.

The Sages taught: [

in the Tosefta]

These are the signs of a wild animal:

Any animal that has horns and hooves.

We ask: But

a wild animal is included within the category of domestic animal with regard to the signs,

as it is written: “This is the animal that you may eat from all the animals upon the earth: Any animal with a completely split hoof.” If so, the signs of a pure wild animal are explicitly written in the Torah. Why does the Tosefta seek other signs for a wild animal!?